The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that employees who are regularized after the promulgation of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022 (including the insertion of Rule 7(A)), are entitled to higher/revised pay from the date of their regularization, provided they fulfill eligibility criteria. This clarifies and enforces non-discrimination among regular employees regardless of their initial contractual or temporary status, and is binding authority for all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16702/2025 of RAJNEESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010649292025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024) |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Government service pay scales) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that once a contractual/temporary employee attains regular status, they become part of the regular stream and are entitled to the benefits of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022. Denying such benefits to regularized employees simply because regularization occurred post-promulgation is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Rule 7(A) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, as inserted in September 2022, applies similarly to employees upon regularization, provided they fulfill stipulated conditions. This ensures equality among all regular employees regardless of their mode of entry, subject to individual dates of eligibility. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner completed two years contractual service in November 2021 and was regularized in April 2022. His claim for higher/revised pay was rejected by respondent no.3 stating he was not covered under Mohit Sharma since he was not regular as of 30.09.2021. The impugned office order was challenged for not correctly applying Mohit Sharma, and the Court noted the factual error and quashed the impugned order, directing reconsideration in light of Mohit Sharma. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in similar statutory/regulatory contexts |
| Follows | Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that all employees who become regular after 03.01.2022, the date of notification of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, are entitled to the revised pay scales, provided they satisfy eligibility criteria, regardless of prior contractual/temporary status.
- Rule 7(A), as inserted in the Revised Pay Rules by 06.09.2022 notification, must be interpreted to provide equal benefits to all regularized employees, not just those regular as of notification date.
- Any departmental orders denying such benefits are liable to be quashed for being discriminatory and contrary to settled legal principle.
- The precedent firmly enforces equality under Articles 14 and 16 in the context of regularized contractual employees’ pay scales.
- Lawyers may directly cite this judgment to challenge denial of revised pay to similarly situated employees regularized post-notification.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the impugned departmental order and noted it rejected the petitioner’s claim based solely on not being a regular employee as of 30.09.2021.
- Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment in Mohit Sharma, which expressly held that the benefit of revised pay rules extends to all who become regular, irrespective of the date of regularization, so long as eligibility (e.g., years of regular service) is satisfied.
- The bench held that interpreting the rules to deny benefits based on date of regularization (post-notification) creates two classes within the same cadre, violating equality (Articles 14 & 16).
- Rule 7(A) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, is part and parcel of the main rules and its benefits also flow to regularized contractual employees on fulfilling service conditions.
- The court quashed the impugned order and directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner’s entitlement strictly in accordance with Mohit Sharma and relevant rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed entitlement to higher/revised pay scale under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, and based on the Mohit Sharma judgment.
- Argued that department’s rejection was erroneous as the petitioner had completed the requisite period of contract service and was subsequently regularized.
Respondent
- Department contended that the petitioner did not fulfill criteria as he was not a regular employee as on 30.09.2021, and therefore not covered by Mohit Sharma.
Factual Background
The dispute arose when the petitioner, after completing two years of contractual service in November 2021 and being regularized in April 2022, sought the benefits of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022, including higher pay as per Rule 7(A). His request was turned down by the department on the ground that he was not regular as of 30.09.2021. The petitioner filed the present writ to challenge this rejection, relying on the Mohit Sharma decision for parity in pay and benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022, especially the main rules notified on 03.01.2022 and Rule 7(A) (inserted via notification dated 06.09.2022).
- The court recognized that Rule 7(A) does not create any distinction between those regularized pre- or post-notification date, so long as the employee was appointed before 03.01.2022 and subsequently satisfies the conditions upon regularization.
- The judgment applies constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 to enforce equality among regular employees.
- It rejected a restrictive interpretation that ties benefits only to regularized status before a cutoff date.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were delivered; the decision was by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The court, considering the nature of the grievance and clear precedent, did not require a formal reply from the respondents, expediting relief.
- Direct directions were issued to the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s claim strictly in line with binding precedent, with a fixed outer time limit for decision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law as laid down in Mohit Sharma was affirmed and clarified for consistent application.